I desire, Mr. President, to make one single remark. It is said that the proposition before the Senate is without precedent. New occasions teach new duties; precedents are made when the occasion requires. Never before has any person appeared to take a seat in this body whose previous conduct and declarations, as disclosed to the Senate, gave reasonable ground to distrust his loyalty. That case, Sir, is without precedent. It behooves the Senate to make a precedent in such an unprecedented case. At this very moment we are engaged in considering if certain Senators shall not be expelled for disloyalty; and it seems to me we shall do our duty poorly, if we receive a new comer with regard to whose loyalty there is reasonable suspicion. January 10, the credentials of Mr. Stark and the accompanying motion were taken up for consideration again, when Mr. Bayard made an elaborate speech against the motion. Mr. Sumner replied in remarks which will be found in the _Congressional Globe_,[196] adducing the case of Philip Barton Key, a sitting member from Maryland, against whom it was alleged, that he “either now was or had been a British pensioner,” and that “an inquiry ought to be had in this matter, as, were it true, it would certainly be a disqualification.”[197] After further debate, the motion of Mr. Fessenden prevailed, and the credentials, with the papers, were referred to the Committee. February 7th, Mr. Harris, of New York, reported from the Committee, that, “without expressing any opinion as to the effect of the papers before them upon any subsequent proceeding in the case,” Mr. Stark was “entitled to take the constitutional oath of office.” Mr. Trumbull, Chairman of the Committee, dissented from the report, thinking it “the duty of the Committee to pass upon the testimony before it in regard to the loyalty of the Senator from Oregon.”[198] February 18th, the Senate resumed the consideration of this case, when Mr. Harris spoke in favor of the report, and Mr. Hale, of New Hampshire, against it. The latter moved that the report be recommitted, with instructions to inquire whether the evidence so far impeached Mr. Stark’s loyalty as to disqualify him from holding a seat in the Senate. This motion presented the very point raised by Mr. Sumner at the beginning, and he spoke upon it as follows.